High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt.Lekhwati Kaushal v. The D.D.E.And Others - WRIT - A No. 53791 of 1999  RD-AH 9081 (11 May 2007)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard Sri M.K. Sharma counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel. Sri Ranjit Saxena, counsel for the respondentno. 3 and is not present.
This case was listed for final hearing in the week commencing 7.5.07. In each of the days during the whole week, Sri Saxena is not present. Today, the case has been revised for five times but he has not put in appearance.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 5.3.1981 in Vidyut Parishad Girls Inter College, Qasimpur Power House, Aligarh (for short 'college'). Smt. Ila Varshney- respondent no. 4 was also appointed in the college on 20.9.1986 as Assistant Teacher. It appears that the respondent no. 4 filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 8136 of 1996 Smt. Ila Varshney Vs. State of U.P. and others in which an order was passed on 29.3.95 directing the Regional Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra to decide her representation regarding promotion in the vacant post of Maths/Science which had become available in 1994 due to vacancy caused in the college. Her case was considered and vide oder dated 15.5.99, respondent no. 4 was given C.T. Grade w.e.f. 1992.
Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.5.1999, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition challenging the validity and correctness of the same.
Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that in the aforesaid case, order dated 15.5.99 has ben passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who was affected party. He has relied upon senior lists dated 23.10.96 of C. T Grade teachers appended as (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) in which the name of the petitioner figures at sl. no. 1 whereas name of respondent no.4 finds place at sl. no. 3. In the confirmation list dated 1.9.93 appended as Annexure 10 to the writ petition the name of the petitioner is at sl. no. 9 whereas that of respondent no. 4 is at sl. no. 11.
It appears that His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Yog had passed interim order on 3.10.2002 staying the operation of order dated 15.5.99.
Clarification application no. 205816 of 2002 was moved by the College and interim order dated 3.10.2002 was modified thus :-
Hon. A.K. Yog, J
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
While passing interim order dated 3.10.2002 at the time of admission of the petition, this Court did not intend to adversely affect respondent no. 4 in any manner. It is clarified that no right of respondent no. 4 shall be prejudiced by any benefit being conferred upon petitioner.
Clarification application is accordingly disposed of.
Since parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits list the petition before regular appropriate Bench.
Case shall not be treated as tied up to this Bench since I am sitting in Division Bench.
Dt. 16.5.2003 Sd/- A.K.Yog, J"
It appears that the petitioner was placed in L.T. Grade vide order dated 18.10.2002 from the date of receipt of the interim order passed in this writ petition.
The grievance of the petitioner is that she being senior, should have been given L.T. Grade as per Government order dated 18.12.1997 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) when the vacancy arose. The Government order dated 18.12.1997 provided that a teacher shall be entitled to L.T. Grade from the date of vacancy or when he/she completes 10 years continuous service in C.T. Grade, whichever is earlier. Case of the petitioner is that in either of the aforesaid contingencies, she was entitled to be appointed in L.T. Grade prior to respondent no. 4 as she had completed 10 years continuous service as C.T. Grade teacher in March 1991and even otherwise vacancy in L.T. Grade became available in 1992 but respondent no. 4 who was junior to her placed in L.T. Grade ignoring the claim of the petitioner. .
The Standing counsel submits that the petitioner had not completed 10 years continuous service in C.T. Grade in March 1991, as alleged by her, as such she could not be placed in L.T. Grade. He defended that impugned orders on the ground that the claim of respondent no. 4 was considered as she had filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 8136 of 1995 in which direction had been issued to consider her claim.
On a querry made by the Court that while considering the claim of respondent no. 4 in perusance of direction in Civil Misc. Writ No. 8136 of 1995 why the case of the petitioner was not considered by the authority,t he could not explain as to why case of the petitioner was not considered with respondent no. 4, who is admittedly junior to petitioner, whose representation was considered in pursuance of the direction of High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 8136 of 1995. It is not in dispute that the Committee of Management and respondent no. 4 were heard which is apparent from the impugned order passed by Regional Director of Education, Agra Region Agra that both of them were heard.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entilted to payment of arrears of salary in L.T. Grade at least from the date of placement of respondent no. 4 in L.T. Grade with all consequential benefits. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to ensure payment of aforesaid dues to the petitioner within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.